TNG: Dark Mirror by Diane Duane Review Thread (Spoilers!)

[Markonian]

tomswift2002 wrote:

---

But if you watch "Paralellels", look at Data's explanation for Worf's condition. From there it can be theorized that "Dark Mirror" takes place in an alternate Mirror Universe that split a some point after "Mirror, Mirror", where in one universe the Terran Empire continued and in another it fell.

If there is more than one universe with the Federation ("Parallels"), there can be more than one Mirror Universe (e.g. the new alternate MU from the IDW comics).

Lacking the scientific background, I consider all the universes featuring Earth stemming from one source, with timelines multiplying like Tribbles (MyrU: "Places of Exile"). Maybe they remain physically in the neighbourhood, thus explaining while our heroes usually cross into similar universes often and other spaces (fluidic space, transdimensional space) rarely.

[Christopher]

^Parallel timelines actually occupy the exact same physical location as one another. They aren't physically separate realities, but alternate quantum states of a single universe. Just as a subatomic particle can be in two or more different states at the same time, so (according to the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics) can an ensemble of many particles, up to and including an entire universe (or at least as much of it as an observer can perceive, everything that interacts enough to be in correlated states).

[Markonian]

^ I understand. It's like the two Voyagers in "Deadlock" and the Devidians from TNG.

[Christopher]

^Not really. But it's vaguely similar.

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Christopher wrote:

---

^Parallel timelines actually occupy the exact same physical location as one another. They aren't physically separate realities, but alternate quantum states of a single universe.

And to use another example: DC Comics. The multiverse, and Hypertime (or whatever the hell they're calling it now) are two different things. Each of the separate universes in DC can have its own set of alternate timelines.

This is what I meant when I pointed out earlier the difference between a timeline and a universe.

[Markonian]

It' fun to speculate about fictional scientific concepts but to be honest, to me they are just the icing of the cake.

One reason why we can have alternate timelines and parallel universes in fiction is because it answers one of the most tempting questions: "What if?" (cf. 2002's The Time Machine). This is something "real" history cannot answer, fiction can.

That's why I regard conflicting continuities (TrekLit vs. STO, 80s continuity vs. current, 7 ends to the 5YM, etc.) as part of one multiverse - because alternate timelines are sooo much cooler than seeing it from a real-world-perspective. Am I making sense?

Each iteration is more or less enjoyable entertainment in itself but it can have the spacy extra of being interpreted as an answer to "What if?".

[Paper Moon]

Markonian wrote:

---

It' fun to speculate about fictional scientific concepts but to be honest, to me they are just the icing of the cake.

…

That's why I regard conflicting continuities (TrekLit vs. STO, 80s continuity vs. current, 7 ends to the 5YM, etc.) as part of one multiverse - because alternate timelines are sooo much cooler than seeing it from a real-world-perspective. Am I making sense?

Each iteration is more or less enjoyable entertainment in itself but it can have the spacy extra of being interpreted as an answer to "What if?".

Yeah, this.

Also, Christopher, I agree that the most important thing is that the story is enjoyable, but I also think there is a value in furthering the work of creating a very largely-consistent tapestry of continuity. I mean, really: we have over 700 hours of film and now dozens, if not hundreds of novels that have been published to be internally consistent. Among that body? There are maybe a dozen inconsistencies that are just totally irreconcilable with the rest of the established work ("The Alternative Factor," some things from TAS, the Tobin Dax short story having warp-incapable Romulans, other things I can't think of, maybe "Threshold"). Everything else, with a touch of imagination or squinting, is basically consistent. (You could probably explain even explain "Threshold" and Tobin's Romulans this way.) There are some things that don't necessarily support established continuity, but few things that actually contradict it. (Which is actually very realistic, since the real world is extraordinarily complicated, as any high schooler who has taken AP Euro History will know.)

Isn't that actually pretty incredible? I think that represents something of artistic and creative value. And I think it's very easy to be extremely creative within that framework, so I don't think it's really a threat to good story-telling.

[Christopher]

^I never said continuity was a threat. I love continuity. I've been writing Trek fiction professionally for a decade now, and aside from a few slight details here and there, everything I've written -- even the things set in alternate timelines -- all fits together into a single consistent, heavily cross-referencing continuity, and stays as consistent as possible with the main novel continuity.

But there's nothing wrong with stories being out of continuity or being in alternative continuities either. There's value in good stories whether they can be made to fit or not. And yeah, sometimes you can justify an out-of-continuity story as being in an alternate timeline. Maybe some fans can believe they all are. But my understanding of how alternate timelines work is more scientifically based so it's more limited. There are some stories I can accept as alternate timelines, but a lot where the nature of the discrepancies can't, in my view, be plausibly explained that way. And in those cases, I'm perfectly satisfied just to enjoy them as alternative fictional takes. I don't think it diminishes them in any way that they're not supposedly "real" in some sense, so I don't feel the need to concoct elaborate rationalizations for how they can be pretend-"real."

[Paper Moon]

Christopher wrote:

---

^I never said continuity was a threat. I love continuity. I've been writing Trek fiction professionally for a decade now, and aside from a few slight details here and there, everything I've written -- even the things set in alternate timelines -- all fits together into a single consistent, heavily cross-referencing continuity, and stays as consistent as possible with the main novel continuity.

But there's nothing wrong with stories being out of continuity or being in alternative continuities either. There's value in good stories whether they can be made to fit or not. And yeah, sometimes you can justify an out-of-continuity story as being in an alternate timeline. Maybe some fans can believe they all are. But my understanding of how alternate timelines work is more scientifically based so it's more limited. There are some stories I can accept as alternate timelines, but a lot where the nature of the discrepancies can't, in my view, be plausibly explained that way. And in those cases, I'm perfectly satisfied just to enjoy them as alternative fictional takes. I don't think it diminishes them in any way that they're not supposedly "real" in some sense, so I don't feel the need to concoct elaborate rationalizations for how they can be pretend-"real."

I don't dispute what you're saying (and I do appreciate the irony of having argued about the virtues of continuity with you of all people, Christopher [but actually, it's one of the things I really love about your novels ]), nor did I say that you said that continuity was a threat to good storytelling.

What you said was:

Christopher wrote:

---

But what does it matter? Continuity is nice when you can get it, but it's all just a bunch of made-up stuff anyway. All that matters is if the story is enjoyable. [source]

And I was disagreeing with the assertion that "all that matters is if the story is enjoyable," which implies that nothing else matters at the end of the day (including continuity).

For the record, it doesn't bother me if I can't connect a Trekwork into a larger continuity– but I do like it when I can, and I think there's value to it. And I know you agree with me on that. And I wanted to articulate why I thought it was of value. Additionally, for the record, I don't believe that the corollary holds, that a work without continuity is therefore without value. It's a reward-based system, not a punitive one.